Only Heavy Metal

A couple of days ago I received a mail from Century Media stating that they had removed Borknagar and all the other Century Media bands from Spotify. In the two days after this a debate has formed and I’ve seen articles and comments in several zines and newspapers, including The Independent and LA Times. Metalsuck.net is even having an ongoing row with the “Suits” of Century Media on their site. What I haven’t seen yet are any comments from the musicians themselves, so let me tell you what I think of this:

Stepping into this salad I’m still undecided which side I’m actually on. The way I see it, this situation is an ongoing shape-shift of the whole business. And it’s still in it’s early stages, most people and businesses are still confused and have little idea of what is going on and noone can really see the outcome of this. It makes most of the ongoing debate into a blabber of nonsense where nothing constructive comes out. Spotify are hiding the numbers, Century Media is offering critics to come work for them for free and Metalsuck are stating that most bands would be better of with no payment as it would lower the use of drugs! Guys, this isn’t going to renew the music business!

I think I just decided to not side with any of these.

What is this all about then? It strips down to a relation between me as the musician and my audience and listeners. In this equation all the others are mere middlemen. And I want to reach my audience in a way that allows me to keep working as a musician and keeps the audience happy. As simple as that. And it involves some actual income from all the work.

You see, the change has been made already. It came with Napster and the ability to share music and movies around for free. And even though Napster is long gone, this isn’t a problem that has gone away. I would say that my decrease in income has little to do with Spotify, it’s more relying on the Music-industry giants like Century Media and their lacking ability to adjust to the “new” era. I will agree on one thing in this debate; the times where the sales of physical copies as the main income of any artist is long gone.

The lack of interest from the younger generations to pay for the music is in a way annoying, I would have to admit that. The rise of political parties to force this policy is to me a sign of decadence. I would guess there are more important issues to any country then to force music to be a free-ware? But the message is clear.

So we need to talk about business-models. And I’ll agree to one more thing here; both Spotify and Metalsucks have discovered a business-model that not too many are fully aware of yet. Oh wait, did I just “out” Metalsucks? Maybe everyone believes that Vince Neilstein and his team are working for charity? No they are not. Their income is reliant on how many people they get to click on their website and make use of their advertisements. And don’t get me wrong, it’s a business-model I appreciate and make use of myself. The advantages are enormous, the audience gets to use the service for free. Advertisement pays the salary for Neilstein and his people.Isn’t this just the solution to all the problems?

But Spotify are taking advantage of peoples lack of general knowledge about this business-model. You see, the big difference is that a site like Metalsucks are making money of something they themselves created; the articles. Spotify on the other hand are selling something I made and all the other musicians and artists out there. And they’re selling lots of it. And paying back minimal fees. And they are getting away with it because so few people still know what amounts we are talking about here.

Two days ago I saw numbers from Great Britain concerning Lady Gaga. The Independent wrote about one of her hits “Pokerface” being played 1 million times in a given period, giving Lady Gaga the whipping payout of 400£. I think the equation was set up that showed that in order for Lady Gaga to reach the minimum salary in British standard she would have to reach 4,2 Million streams on Spotify. Each month!!

175 000 paying customers in USA alone? Anyone want to do the calculation? And I would also guess that this isn’t even the biggest part of their income, but the adz are. 36 million streams pr month (in USA alone)…

This is where the current problem lies. What seems most strange to me is the utter lack of knowledge about this in the music industry. I do believe that this is now being thoroughly looked into though, by some heavy-weight players like national music organizations, the bigger labels and now also getting attention from investigative journalists.

As you probably understand by now, I’m no big fan of Spotify either. Although I will acknowledge that what they’re doing now have great entrepreneurial value. They are Pioneers into the new era of music industry, but I would guess that their offices suffers from a bit of panic. What is the nature of a process like this? If I were to launch a streaming system that actually paid something to the artists, still without charging the audience. How long would Spotify be able to compete with that? And I hope for their sake that they understand this. They will not have much time to react.

People are making money on web, and I’m amazed that so many find that hard to believe. This is what creates possibilities for companies like Spotify.

My revelation of the future doesn’t exclude the traditional labels like Century Media. But it requires a huge reorganization. And please guys, stop saying that the physical copy will be the main source of income in the future. It will not even be the main source of income next year!

—————Jens

Two days ago I saw numbers from Great Britain concerning Lady Gaga. The Independent wrote about one of her hits “Pokerface” being played 1 million times in a given period, giving Lady Gaga the whipping payout of 400£. I think the equation was set up that showed that in order for Lady Gaga to reach the minimum salary in British standard she would have to reach 4,2 Million streams on Spotify. Each month!!

Jon Schaffer, founder and creative force behind American metal icons ICED EARTH, has released a statement regarding the recent decision by the band's record label, Century Media, to pull its repertoire from streaming music service Spotify in an attempt "to protect the interests of their artists."

"A lot of fans have contacted us regarding Century Media's decision to pull all of its bands from Spotify," Schaffer said. "I want our fans to know that we had nothing to do with that decision.

"We understand Century Media's position. The music industry has been deeply and irrevocably affected by illegal downloading on the Internet. I understand that all too well. In fact, all professional musicians today understand that. But Spotify is one of the most important developments in music I've seen in quite awhile. It allows fans to search for music from bands all over the world — sometimes rare, impossible-to-find, or out-of-print music. They hear it, decide they like it, and seek it out to buy it from a variety of sources — legal sources like iTunes, Amazon, or Amazon Marketplace.

"That's a good thing. Stealing music is not. But sampling it on Spotify — which is legal and highly regarded worldwide — is not stealing it.

"If it were up to me, I'd put ICED EARTH's music back on Spotify. But I also have to respect the wishes of Century Media, our record label. They're only trying to protect the best interests of their bands.

"So, I ask fans of ICED EARTH to be respectful as well. Maybe additional dialogue with Century Media will change their minds. In the meantime, let's all just agree to disagree on this one and wait to see what the future holds."

Si es que no saben ni lo que quieren.
En vez de dar soluciones se aferran al pasado y no se dan cuenta que estan en un mundo que sigue girando y que ellos se han quedado fuera.

Parece ser que el problema está en el reparto del pastel. Que Spotify se forra y que Century Media gana menos de lo que esperaba con este invento.